Mac: Steve Jobs just plugged up all my holes Way to go. You've just taken all the Apple fanbois away from their keyboards, as they think about Steve Jobs plugging up their holes.
The United States current presence in Iraq is at the request of the Iraqi government and under a clear mandate from the Security Council (first from resolution 1546, and most recently from resolution 1723. See Annex 1 in resolution 1723 for the letter from Prime Minister al-Maliki requesting the multinational force to stay).
Ohhh...sure. I guess that international peace and security to the area stuff isn't so important these days. A lack of UN resolution calling for the ouster of Saddam and US occupation of the country is no barrier to these things happening all because of the all important need for international peace and security to the area, but we can ignore the fact that these actions have resulted in even less peace and security in the area four years later. Has the UN revoked that magical authority the derived from 687? If not, someone needs to step up and enforce it. Perhaps China. I'm sure you would support that.
By the way, you should note that 1723 specifically includes France's concern regarding with the worsening of the security situation and noted that "a clear horizon for withdrawal of foreign troops made it possible to send a clear message that the objective of the international community was to help Iraq." Of course, the US refuses to even consider even a muddled horizon for the withdrawal of foreign troops, thereby failing to send a clear message on the objective of the international community.
I don't think that is a fair characterization. Some nations, most notably Russia and China as you pointed out, condemned the attacks. Others, like Japan and Sweden, gave strong endorsements of the US and UK position. The rest of the members of the Security Council, including countries like France and Costa Rica, expressed sorrow at the situation without taking a strong position either way about the legality of the actions. See S/PV.3955 for the minutes of the relevant discussion in the Security Council.
Fair enough; "roundly" was probably the wrong word. As you note, two of the five permanent members of the Security Council were very much opposed. Russia claimed that the bombings created a threat to "peace and security not only in the region but beyond it" (there's that phrase again). Russia and Chine strongly condemned the attacks and pointed out that the trouble was created as much by the US, UK, and UNSCOM, by intentionally provoking Saddam (something that has been documented throughout the process). And while trying to tip-toe across egg shells, even Kofi Annan expressed his disappointment with the actions and hoped to work toward a peaceful solution.
And back to the 2003 invasion for a moment, doesn't it say something when three of the five permanent Security Council members say the action of two other members is illegal and unjustified? And, when the Secretary-General of the UN agrees and calls the invasion illegal, against the will of the Security Council and the UN Charter?
This is completely false. Here is a quote from US Ambassador to the UN Peter Burleigh from the minutes I linked to above:
I misspoke. The arguments I referenced were made in the media and Congress, not before the Security Council. The US and UK ambassadors clearly did invoke those resolutions. And, the Russians and Chinese disagreed strongly with the US and UK interpretation.
Of course they were! Allow me to quote from the 2002 Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq...Iraq's support of terrorism was key to the argument from day one!
Now it's my turn to be right again! In response to my claims that the US government used weak and outright false connections between Iraq and 9/11 to bolster public support for an invasion, you claimed that regardless Iraq was a big supporter or terrorism, especially against the West. I asked why nothing outside of the supposed 9/11 connection was used. You say it was and point to
Other companies have offered this as an option (I know Xerox used to and I think Ricoh did as well). You sign a contract based upon a certain page count. You are provided equipment, service on the equipment, and sufficient ink/toner for that page count. Additional pages above your magic number are billed at a predetermined rate. In this arrangement, there is zero third-party toner market.
I have no problem with anyone offering this as an option. But HP has been very overt in their fight with their third-party toner market and this appears to be an obvious step in again trying to eliminate it.
From this, we see that "all necessary means" was authorized to
uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions
restore international peace and security in the area
In other words, their ambitions were much broader than just kicking Iraq out of Kuwait. Absolutely not. As I've already explained, that second point means nothing significant here. It is commonly used wording which ties the resolution back to the UN's mission.
Let's look at Resolution 425:
The Security Council,
Taking note of the letters from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon and from the Permanent Representative of Israel, Having heard the statement of the Permanent Representatives of Lebanon and Israel, Gravely concerned at the deterioration of the situation in the Middle East and its consequences to the maintenance of international peace, Convinced that the present situation impedes the achievement of a just peace in the Middle East,
Calls for strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries;
Calls upon Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory;
Decides, in the light of the request of the Government of Lebanon, to establish immediately under its authority a United Nations interim force for Southern Lebanon for the purpose of confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring international peace and security and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area, the Force to be composed of personnel drawn from Member States;
Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council within twenty-four hours on the implementation of the present resolution."
Israel finally pulled out its troops in 2000, more than 22 years after the UN passed this resolution. During that time, there were many deaths, many cases of terrorism, much open conflict. Considering that the resolution included the magic words "restoring international peace and security", someone should have invaded and occupied Israel years ago. I suppose you would have supported that?
I disagree. As previously pointed out, the Security Council authorized war to get Iraq out of Kuwait, and to disarm Iraq and ensure they discontinue supporting terrorists. There is no indefinite or unilateral interpretation of this. In fact, all of the subsequent resolutions passed by the security council, and all of the subsequent military action taken against Iraq in the 1990's was done with this authorization, and the authorization was never revoked. The title of UNSEC #1441 is "The situation between Iraq and Kuwait", clearly showing that the Security Council didn't feel the ceasefire resolution was resolved. In my mind, the only people that didn't have any standing were those who refused to enforce the resolutions that had already been already passed by the Security Council.
You are free to think that, but that doesn't make it correct. Resolution 678 says nothing of disarming Iraq or them supporting terrorists. It is about Kuwait and nothing else (the "restore international peace and security in the area" is standard language and had no special meaning). As I've pointed out several times, 687 implemented a cease-fire and reserved future steps for the Security Council. You can keep ignoring that, but it's there. Read the Resolution. Further, the actions of the 90's also faced opposition. And, the '98 bombing (Operation Desert Fox) wasn't argued under these resolutions at all.
Your opinion of Russia, China, and France aside, the point is that they didn't feel that invasion and open war was the appropriate response at that time. So, the Security Council did not give its support to the invasion. I can respect your disagreement with those members, but not your attempts to distort the documented resolutions.
Well, Saddam's desire to bring his programs back online is significant, and is without question contrary to UN mandate. Hiding research, development, and acquisition attempts of banned materials and technology from UN inspectors is also significant. Maintaining chemical factories that can be switched to full scale Mustard production in a month is significant. Operating clandestine chemical and biological agent laboratories is significant. Seeking ballistic missiles and UAV's with a range time times greater than the allowed limit is significant. The Duelfer report is over 1400+ pages long, which is why I encourage anybody to at least read the key findings summary so they can know exactly what we did find, and how it was in violation to UNMOVIC requirements. However, in my mind the first page says it all -- Iraq wasn't concerned about compliance, they were concerned about the illusion of compliance.
I can see we're not going to make progress on this one. You've been unable to point to anything but Saddam's desire, then you try to equate that to actions. You simply are wrong on this one.
I am arguing that the UN would have been completely ineffective if the US and UK had not enforced the resolutions.
As I've answered elsewhere in this thread, you may be correct but the US/UK action is as bad or worse for the UN.
If you want to argue that there was absolutely no legal basis for military action in 2003, then you also have to argue that there was absolutely no legal basis for military action in 1998 for Operation Desert Fox under President Clinton...
As I've explained elsewhere in this thread, there was not international support for Desert Fox. China, Russia, and France opposed it. And, it was carried out under 688, a resolution absolutely zero authorization of force.
...and that there was absolutely no legal basis for the military action taken against Iraq in 1993 for WMD non-compliance.
At least this one was widely supported (France dropped a lot of the bombs and Russia supported the operation; I'm not sure about China) and was spurred by very overt actions. I'm not willing to say it was appropriate under the UN resolutions, but at least it d
Let me say this once again: the UN has no executive branch. The UN consists of a bunch of soft, aging diplomants on the upper east side of Manhattan. They have absolutely no means to enforce anything. That is why the UN Charter requires member states to enforce the mandates of the Security Council.
In the case of Iraq, the Security council mandated that Iraq disarm, cease all WMD activity, and stop supporting terrorism. The council supported this mandate with the authorization given in 678 to use "all necessary means" to achieve compliance. The council never terminated this authorization. After 12 years, nobody could legitimately claim that Iraq was in complience.
'Round and around we go. The Security Council declared a cease-fire in 687 and reserved further action for themselves. Ignoring this point doesn't make it go away.
You see the US and UK's (and the "coalition" that you discount's) actions as being harmful to the UN. I think it is the exact opposite- the invasion of Iraq saved the UN from becoming completely worthless. An organization that cannot enforce its own mandates, even in the face of over a decade in open defiance and deceit, is useless. Saddam was writing the playbook for any other rogue world leaders on how to defy the Security Council and get away with it. The US and UK showed that the decisions of the Security Council do have meaning, even if it takes 17 unanimous resolutions and 12 years for the council's will to be enforced. The US and UK showed that the UN is pointless because those at the top can do as they wish with no apparent repercussions. The US invaded Afghanistan and continues to occupy it with no end in sight. The biggest change over the Taliban's rule is that poppy production is back up, flooding the world with cheap opium again. The US invaded Iraq and continues to occupy it. Iraq is in shambles and shows no signs of approaching even the level of stability found under Saddam. The US and UK confirmed that international organizations are only as good as the big guys want to play fair. As permanent members with veto power, the US and UK have nothing to fear from the Security Council. Take a look at the relatively-minor resolutions condemning US actions that the US vetoed.
These two threads have overlapped and circled around multiple times. I am not going to repeat the same arguments again.
I will pick up a few new items:
How am I trying to mislead? I quoted directly from Resolution 678. The UN explicitly gave the authorization for two things:
Implementing 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions
Restoring international peace and security to the area
On item (2), I guess some other UN country will need to invade again and kick the US out, unless you are willing to claim that international peace and security to the area has improved. Surely that's not a limb you're willing to crawl out on.
And, while I said I wouldn't repeat myself, I feel I must again point out the fallacy in your overall argument here. Resolution 687 declared a cease-fire and reserved the right for the Security Council to take further measures as necessary. Therefore, 660, 678, and 687 are pointless in this argument. Further, Resolution 1441 does not authorize force.
The authorization from 678 and 687 was enough to justify military action multiple times in the 1990s...So, as Secretary General of the United Nations, I can say that this action was taken and conforms to the resolutions of the Security Council and conformed to the Charter of the United Nations
First, I've never seen the quote; I would be interested in knowing where I could find it.
Secondly, those military actions in the '90s were challenged as well, but they fell well short of invasion. And, to be practical, taking out a few missile factories or military airfields in response to large violations of the agreement (massing troops at the border again and going into Kuwait to recover abandoned military hardware) is easier to let pass. The 1993 attacks were supported by at least most of the Security Council (Russia was involved and France did a lot of the bombing).
More recently, the '98 bombings by the US and UK were roundly condemned in the international community. Russia, France, and China opposed the actions in the Security Council. And, it is worth noting that the US didn't use 660, 678, or 687 to justify those attacks. This was about the no-fly zones that were setup from the Safwan Accords and often linked to Resolution 688. However, 688 is not a Chapter VII resolution so it did not permit any military action for enforcement. The no-fly zones themselves never had UN authorization.
Vice President Cheney never claimed that Iraq was responsible for September 11, and I defy you to show otherwise. I remember a talk show that he was on a few years ago where he said that the Middle East is home to the fanatics that carried out the attacks, and some people misinterpreted that to mean Iraq, but he has never blamed Iraq for 9/11.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/
This is but one example of how the administration used propaganda to those ends. The process was the same: White House sources leaked the information to the press, the administration refuses to confirm or deny it, then they said it seems to be true, and would refuse to deny the validity of the information long after it had been discredited. In the particular article linked above, Cheney doesn't say, "Saddam flew the planes into NY on 9/11". But he provides a very dishonest response, carefully calculated to continue the propaganda.
The facts that Iraq was one of the most active supporters of terrorism, especially against the West, are incontrovertible.
Then why weren't those facts used to support the war? The administration talked plenty about Iraq's connection to Al-Qaeda (intentionally playing on the Al-Qaeda = 9/11 connection) despite weak evidence that eventually crumbled around them. If there are tons of incontroverti
The Security Council did make that decision - 17 times with a unanimous vote. Membership in the UN does mean accepting basic agreements, and Chapter VII clearly lays the responsibility of enforcement squarely on the shoulders of member states. When the US votes in favor of a Chapter VII resolution authorizing military force, we are voting to send our troops to carry out the will of the UN. Which brings us right back to the use and abuse of the resolutions. The Council authorized war in order to get Iraq back out of Kuwait. You want that to be available for the US to use indefinitely and at the government's unilateral whim. The Security Council did not agree with your interpretation. Which means that US had no standing to "enforce".
I'm sorry, but I just cannot accept that excuse...The "WMD weapons related programs" that were discovered by the ISG would have constituted a major violation with Iraq's WMD compliance had they been found before the war, just as the discovery of Vx was in 1998, or the admission of their BW program in 1995. You've yet to point out anything significant in the ISG report other than Saddam's desire to bring his programs back online. That was never a violation of any sanction. I'm sorry if you don't like the "excuse", but there was nothing wrong with Saddam wanting a weapons program or planning for one post-sanctions. You want to tie this into him actually having weapons, but fail to point to anything in the ISG report or the Duelfer report. Like it or not, wanting is not the same as doing or having.
That isn't an accurate characterization of my views, or of the historical events leading up to the war...You bet I have no problem enforcing those 17 Chapter VII resolutions as required by the UN charter to eliminate such a glaring global and national security problem that would not have resolved itself, even if other nations who were signatory to those same resolutions refused. There is no question in my mind that our response to this threat was not only proportional, but required for our security, and for the security of the region. We're going in circles again. You're in the same trap as so many who take this position - you want to twist the UN resolutions into something they aren't and use them as justification and legal cover, yet ignore the basic rules of the UN that undermine you. You could make the argument that the UN was completely ineffective at disarming Iraq so the US had to do it (an opinion I shared back when the administration was telling the world about Saddam's massive stockpiles of weapons). But you aren't. If you want to use the UN resolutions as justification, then you have to be willing to accept that the Security Council did not support the US actions yet the US took them anyway. You have to accept that such actions are not in line with the UN charter.
I also have no problem with you disagreeing with that conclusion. What I do have a problem with is completely ignoring the historical, legal, and strategic justifications that you apparently agreed with when the war started 4 years ago because a group of thugs and terrorists are making life miserable in Iraq today. I'm not ignoring anything that I agreed with four years ago. I, like so many, trusted the intelligence data used by Bush to push the country into war. There was virtually no public data available to counter what was spoon fed to the populace each day. Later we learned from the Duelfer and ISG reports that Saddam really was neutered. He had leaks from disgruntled CIA operatives who revealed that so much of the information broadcast to America (and the world, via the UN) was utter crap. As each piece of the war story fell apart, I stepped back and re-evaluated my position. At some point, I found that I could no longer defend it. The US had become a world bully (true or not, the world thinks so). Contrary to your claims (and the same ones made by Rush, Hannity, Coulter, and such), I oppose the handling of this invasion and the actions of the administration on moral and legal grounds, not some lack of backbone now that things are "tough". Chest-thumping only gets more US soldiers killed for no good reason.
Osama wants us out of the middle east. He said that before and after 9-11. He doesn't care about our freedom, or our malls or anything else we do over here. He just wants us out of the middle east because we are the only thing standing between what limited freedom they have and completed domination by sharia law. Unfortunately, if Democrats have their way, Osama gets his way. So? Do you believe it worth sacrificing the lives of thousands of US youths just to spite bin Laden?
Perhaps we are just nitpicking here, but the Security Council is solely comprised of member states, so I don't see much difference. If we are charged with enforcing ceasefire conditions, and we find that Iraq is in material breach of those agreements, it is our responsibility (as members of the UN security council) to enforce those resolutions.
No, we aren't nitpicking. This is a core problem for the US government - membership in the UN means accepting certain basic agreements. The UN Charter lays out a core understanding of how things operate, one being this issue. It is not the responsibility of any one member state to make such decisions and act upon them. It is the responsibility of the Security Council. If you don't like that, take the bars and stars off the flag pole in Manhattan and leave it for the other 191 countries. Otherwise, play by the rules.
I don't know if it is deliberate or not, but you are excluding the rest of the wording included in the text of the resolution. Iraq had to "unconditionally undertake not to" engage in proscribed activities. They were not allowed to even plan on developing WMD, or talk with other countries about acquiring banned missile technology or prohibited materials.
Ahh. Now I see the rub. That isn't what that passage means. "Unconditionally undertake not to..." is essentially "solemnly swear not to". It has no additional meaning and has nothing to do with planning to what it is not allowed. This is extremely common wording in legal documents, both international items like this and even local banking agreements.
I didn't say that bin Laden was in Iraq -- I said that Saddam Hussein offered him political asylum after he was expelled from Saudi Arabia and was searching for a place to set up shop.
Actually, you didn't say that. I was unsure exactly what you meant. I am aware of those reports back in 1999. It apparently was nothing but saber rattling from Saddam - bin Laden didn't take him up on and Saddam reportedly decided in 2001 that he didn't want bin Laden there after all.
And I disagree with your characterization of Zarqawi. Ansar al-Islam was operating out of northern Iraq, but Zarqawi was operating in and out of Baghdad, and even received medical treatment from Uday Hussein's personal physician in the summer of 2002.
Zarqawi reported left Iran for Iraq specifically for the medical treatment (supposedly for a wound received while fighting against the US in Afghanistan). After his treatment, he setup in northern Iraq. He was not operating out of Baghdad - the Pentagon tracked him daily for nearly a year in the lead-up to the invasion and he stayed in northern Iraq.
Let me turn it around. Why do you think it was an option? I've already explained why I believe it wasn't an option.
Your explanation for why it isn't an option seems to hinge on your misunderstanding of the phrase "unconditionally undertake". There's a difference between planning and implementing. Saddam had every right to re-arm himself once the sanctions were lifted so it should be obvious that he would be planning for it.
Every report also declared that Iraq was in material breach of their UN obligations. Even Hans Blix agreed that Iraq was not fully complying, and the ISG report backed it all up. This wasn't a case of putting a bullet in their head "just in case" - it was a case of putting a bullet in their head because they already proven that they were a lethal threat that we could no longer ignore, they were secretly rearming and planning to further rearm, and they had only responded to bullets in the past.
Clearly my statements regarding proportionality of response aren't getting through. Under international law, UN mandate, and most common law, a response must be proportional to the event that initiated it. In what turned out to be his final report before the invasion, Blix reported success in the inspections and requested more t
Which is the same thing as an agreement between Iraq and UN Member states that were obligated to enforce the UN resolutions.
Wrong. Security Council resolutions are mandates enforced, modified, or terminated by the Security Council, not by states in general. Both the explicit terms of the UN Charter and the practice of the Security Council support this understanding.
Sure it does. The resolution specifically required Iraq to "unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire" these items. It would be patently false to claim that these actions did not violate that clause.
Then please indulge my ignorance and explain whether he used, developed, constructed, or acquired missiles.
I'm confused about where your conflict is here. It is a documented fact agreed upon by all parties that Iraq sent an envoy to Niger to discuss business relationships. It's also a documented fact that Niger understood these overtures as an attempt to buy Yellowcake from them. Considering that Yellowcake was a major export, this isn't a stretch. It is, once again, also a documented fact that Iraq was required to "unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire" these items. This information is completely independent of the documents that were later discovered as forgeries.
Calling some of those items documented facts are a bit of a stretch, but I will agree that they are more than likely all true. However, that only gets us back to our argument of what is actually prohibited. If an envoy from Iraq talked to a businessman in Niger, never mentioned uranium, and nothing further came of the overture, then how exactly did Saddam use, develop, construct, or acquire said items?
Very valid point, and I am in complete agreement. However, this is completely irrelevant to the issue of Iraq trying to acquire banned materials prior to the war.
Actually, it goes back to my overall theme of "good guys" vs. "bad guys" and propaganda. The US is trying to claim the moral and legal high ground, and using claims related to nuclear materials to get points with the general public. However, their actions (intentional or negligence - your call) directly led to the disappearance of huge quantities of the stuff. The US claimed to be worried that Iraq would provide the materials to terrorists, but perhaps that's exactly what the US did here (again, intentionally or not).
Unfortunately, his own actions backed him into the corner that it was in fact illegal. When the United Nations prohibits you from using, developing, constructing, or acquiring WMD, you can't hide your Vx nerve gas production, fail to disclose the status of other WMD programs or stockpiles...without expecting consequences from those who are in charge of ensuring your compliance.
I agree. However, my response was in regard to your quote: He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted as the smoking gun from the Duelfer report. You're now steering us back to the argument that was abandoned earlier regarding the use of pre-1441 resolutions and Iraq's responses.
And you certainly cannot offer political asylum to the world's most wanted terrorist, or allow known terror groups that have connections to the largest terrorist attack on civilians in history to operate within your borders, even if you don't have a collaborative relationship with that group.
Osama bin Laden was in Iraq?! I'm going to guess that your comments are in reference to Zarqawi. As I've said numerous times in this thread, he operated out of the northern part of Iraq which was outside of Saddam's control. Beyond that, a little knowledge of the two reveals the inconsistency with your claim - Zarqawi (and the nebulous Al-Qaeda network, for that matter) advocated the overthrowing of secular governments in favor of Islamic states. Saddam ran a s
I will only leave one final point: If a party agrees to certain conditions for the terms of a ceasefire, and then is found in material breach of those conditions, is that ceasefire still in effect?
If the cease-fire was an agreement between two countries, perhaps you can make the argument. However, the agreement was between Iraq and the UN.
You seem to be missing the point. He was not allowed to have these missiles, and he was clearly trying to acquire them against UN mandate.
The resolution doesn't say he can't talk to other countries about missiles. It is patently false to claim that his inquiring about missile technology was in violation of the sanctions.
Just as he was not allowed to have the Uranium Yellowcake that he had clearly tried to aquire from Africa.
I can't believe you tossed up a softball like this. The best information indicates that there might have been some communication between Niger and Iraq about expanding business relations, but that there was zero mention of uranium and that Niger didn't pursue the potential relationship because of concerns about UN sanctions. This became an issue because of the forged documents used by the Bush administration in their push for war. Even today, I bet a full third of the American public don't realize that the whole story was a hoax.
If you want to talk about yellow cake, let's discuss Tuwaitha. This facility already possessed yellow cake uranium in the remains of nuclear reactors (the ones bombed by Israel in 1981 and the United States in 1991). The facility was frequently inspected by the IAEA after the Gulf War, but was left unattended during the US invasion. Almost two metric tons of yellow cake and 500 tons of unrefined uranium went missing during this period, thanks to the US. When U.S. Marines arrived at the Tuwaitha factory, they reported it as an illegal weapons cache and broke the IAEA seals. After a month of indecision, the Pentagon finally dispatched a team to survey the site and found it heavily looted.
He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted."
So what? He is the leader of a nation in the most violation geopolitical region on earth. He has made serious enemies over the years. Of course he wants to end the sanctions and restart his weapons programs. Again, this is in no way a breach of the cease-fire. Dreams aren't illegal, yet.
Arguing that this was not enough to justify military action is, IMO, the same as arguing that we shouldn't do anything about potential killers like Cho Seung-Hui until they strap on a few guns, chain the doors shut, and start shooting people. In my opinion, that is clearly too late.
So we go Minority Report and convict people before they've decided to commit a crime? Perhaps the professor that referred Seung-Hui should have just shot him last year and been declared a hero? I disagree strongly. Was the hell wrought upon Iraq proportional to Saddam's toying with the letter of the sanctions? No.
As for the VT case... This guy had been accused of stalking two women in the past. Because of a friend's concern that he was suicidal, he was taken to a mental health facility only last year. At about the same time, the professor reported her concerns about him. Everyone describes him as completely out of touch with reality, threatening, frightening, and such. After some students stopped coming to class because of his intimidation, a professor finally got him removed from her class by threatening to quit. His tutor was so frightened by him that she created a secret code word with her assistant in case she ever needed the police. Other students joked that he was going to be a school shooter some day.
Yet the university did nothing. Having worked at a university for five years, I can say that this is frustratingly common. I saw several kids get in serious t
Bingo. They declared these weapons to the UN in December of 2002, but had been banned from possessing them or developing them 12 years prior to that. But they did declare them and therefore were not in breach of the cease-fire. This only demonstrates that 1441 was working, much to the chagrin of the US administration.
Iraq entered into negotiations with North Korean and Russian entities for more capable missile systems. Iraq and North Korea in 2000 discussed a 1,300-km-range missile, probably the No Dong, and in 2002 Iraq approached Russian entities about acquiring the Iskander-E short-range ballistic missile (SRBM). DEAR GOD! Saddam still wanted missiles?!! Did he get those No Dong missiles? No.
Again, I would recommend that you at least read the key findings document from the Duelfer report. Keeping in mind that Iraq was forbidden by UNSEC #687 to "to use, develop, construct or acquire" WMD, you don't have to go past the first page to find that he was in material breach. Actually, I have and I'm still not seeing your smoking gun. Would you care to point out what on the first page is a "material breach"?
I'm going to be honest- I found this list of alleged lies to be rather petty...Considering the constant drumbeat of "Bush Lied" I am a little surprised that this was all you came up with.
So you're upset that people call him a liar without support, but then find support lies to seem petty? And, that wasn't all I came up with. That list accounted for a good deal of my post and was but a drop in the bucket. If you aren't aware of the many blatant lies and don't care to go read the wealth of documented lists, then I guess your head can stay in the sand.
I don't think you could go on about those. Everything he said about Niger yellowcake is 100% true, I don't know what lies about domestic spying you are referring to (the President never denied the existence of the program), and nobody in the administration has claimed that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 (on the contrary, the President has publicly stated multiple times that Iraq was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Example).
As I just said, this is a pointless exercise. I could have GWB standing in front of you saying that the moon is made of green cheese and you would deny that he lied. Besides, your ultimate out is always to claim political incompetence and blame his aides.
It is pretty hard to deny that this constitutes a serious threat against us, and we had just learned a pretty vivid lesson on September 11 about what happens when you ignore these kinds of threats.
It is amazing how that worked out. Nevermind that the Deulfer and ISG reports indicate that Saddam had little to no interest in attacking the US - he was preoccupied primarily with Iran. The one big connection found to a terrorist network is a group that opposes Iran (and has been supported by US officials, including John Ashcroft). Saddam also supported the Palestinians in their fight with Israel. Meanwhile we have North Korea and Iran openly threatening the US without any repercussions.
Well, when the US joined the United Nations and agreed to it's charter, it (like all members of the UN) agreed in Chapter VII to enforce the mandates of the Security Council.
And when the Security Council does not agree with the US's interpretation of previous resolutions and refuses to unambiguously authorize the use of force, the US is empowered to act for the full Security Council? No. Article 39 of the UN Charter says that, "[t]he Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security." After the Resolution 687 declared a cease-fire, it was up to the Security Council to again decide on breaches of "international peace" and how to best deal with them. This right does not belong to any single member nation.
I disagree- the UN explicitly gave the authorization to use military force to enforce the cease-fire defined in resolution 687, and backed that authorization up over a dozen times in subsequent years. This is the same authorization that was used to justify air strikes against Iraqi anti-aircraft installations in 1993 and for Operation Desert Fox in 1998. It was valid then and it was still valid in 2003.
I understand the legal loopholes argued for by the Bush administration and I know that even the UK was uncomfortable with the US position. Your choice of wording is intentionally misleading (and factually inaccurate). The UN explicitly gave authorization for member nations to work with the government of Kuwait to push Iraq back to their previous borders. Your extrapolation is that Saddam's flaunting of the letter of the law revoked the cease-fire agreement, which then automatically reactivates the authorization for force from years earlier. But not even the US administration relied on 660, 678, and 687 alone. As I pointed out elsewhere in
Vonage is a big Cisco customer. Why didn't Cisco save their customer to pay them more money later by reporting they had prior art that invalidated Verizon's patent?
Maybe Verizon is a bigger Cisco customer than Vonage is.
UNSEC 678 authorizes the use of military force to "uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area".
UNSEC 687, sections C through H, spelled out exactly what was required of Iraq to restore international peace and security to the area, including: a complete declaration and destruction in the presence of UN observers of their WMD stockpiles, a complete declaration and destruction of their ballistic missile and UAV programs with a range of at least 150km, a specific prohibition that Iraq was not "to use, develop, construct or acquire" WMD, and that Iraq "will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory", along with condemning any other acts of international terrorism.
The US did not depend on 678 - they considered 1441 the loophole they needed. Resolution 1441 did not authorize the use of force. In fact, both the U.S. ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, and the UK ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, gave assurances that the resolution provided no "automaticity", no "hidden triggers". The US and UK ambassadors agreed that 1441 included no step to invasion without consultation of the Security Council. The US was keenly aware of this and tried desperately to get UN approval via a new resolution, but they could not. And keep in mind that both Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei had just given the UN reports that further undercut the US push for war - they had found nothing worthy of concern and wanted more time to continue the inspections. The American attack forced the weapons inspectors back out of the country.
Don't get me wrong - Saddam was jerking around the international community and playing games with the system. Some of those on the Security Council refusing to authorize war were profitting from illegal deals with Iraq. However, none of that gives the US the right to launch a war of aggression against another sovereign nation.
Iraq did not dismantle their prohibited ballistic missile programs as was proven by the discovery of the Al-Samoud 2 missiles, and the development of the North Korean No Dong 2000km ballistic missiles.
You mean the Al-Samoud 2 missiles that were declared to the UN in December of 2002 and were considered a violation because they could potentially exceed the 150 km range limit by 30 km? The same Al-Samoud 2 missiles that Iraq was in the process of destroying when the US invasion occurred? I have to admit that I'm at a loss to explain your "North Korean No Dong 2000km ballistic missiles" comment. I'm not aware of any reports about No Dong missiles in Iraq and I can't find anything on Google. No Dong missiles do not even have a 2000 km range.
We know for a fact from the Duelfer report, and from the interim ISG report by David Kay, that Iraq did not discontinue the development and acquisition of WMD. Both reports clearly detail WMD development activities that were in violation of UN mandate.
Again, I'm at a loss. The Duelfer report was considered a scathing rebuke of American rhetoric and propaganda. It indicated that Saddam wanted to restart his weapons programs as soon as the sanctions were lifted, but I don't think that was disallowed. The report demonstrated that his nuclear program was in shambles, and his chemical and biological programs nonexistent. And why do you guys love to reference David Kay's interim report rather than the final ISG report? Even with the few issues pointed out in the report, the conclusion is that they were insignificant.
But there is also no doubt that Iraq was still in violation of UNSEC 687 paragraph 10, leaving a clear authorization to use military force for compliance.
As has been pointed out many times, the US is not the UN. The US did not pass those resolutions alone and the US does not have the authority to interpret and s
My other response became so lengthy that I lost many thoughts along the way:)
One other item that I wanted to point out is that even if we accept that Resolutions 1441, 687, 678, and 660 actually do combine in such a way to provide a legal loophole for enforcement of 687 without additional Council actions, lawfulness must also consider the question of proportionality. Any force used relative to the authorization in 678:
must have as its objective the enforcement the terms of the cease-fire contained in resolution 687 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions
be limited to what is necessary to achieve that objective
must be a proportionate response to that objective, ie securing compliance with Iraq's disarmament obligations
(this is according to Britain's Attorney General back in 2003)
He stressed to Blair that regime change cannot be the objective of military action and that "this should be borne in mind...in making public statements about any campaign", advice clearly taken by the US government.
Bush's arguments from his State of the Union boil down to:
to eliminate Saddam's weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
to diminish the threat of international terrorism
to promote democracy in Iraq and surrounding areas
The first item on that list is the only one remotely related to the UN resolutions and it turned out it be malarkey. There was plenty of room for arguing that Iraq's failure to allow full and unfettered inspections amounted to a clear breach of the cease-fire agreement. However, this failed to get significant support for war so intelligence data was doctored and manufactured to make it appear that Saddam actually possessed these weapons.
On this point, you claimed:
...and after the invasion, the ISG found over a dozen hidden proscribed weapons programs, along with an illicit procurement system and weapons infrastructure, that we didn't know about. I personally think that what we did find is a lot more scary than what we thought we would find.
I would love to see real support for this, because I can't find it. I assume your statement is pulled from David Kay's interim report on the ISG. What I did find was the September 30, 2004, U.S. Iraq Survey Group Final Report that concluded: "ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn (sic) possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but the available evidence from its investigation--including detainee interviews and document exploitation--leaves open the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq although not of a militarily significant capability." Point after point in the report indicate that while Saddam still had aspirations of weapons programs, the Gulf War and subsequent inspections had destroyed his capacity to produce conventional, chemical, or nuclear weapons of any significant concern outside of the UN sanctions. I can't imagine how a few discoveries like a nuclear scientist with a centrifuge buried in his yard is scarier than what Bush claimed we'd find in Iraq.
As for the rest of Bush's claims, the second was based upon dishonest connections, and the invasion and occupation has had the opposite effect anyway. Which leaves us only with number 3 - regime change. As pointed out by the British Attorney General, this is not a legitimate basis for a declaration of war.
Unfortunately, propaganda is rampant on all sides of the debate. Look at the legions of people that call George W Bush a "liar" without bothering to cite what it is exactly that they think he lied about.
That is a valid complaint, but doesn't change the facts. All politicians are liars. Bush just seems to be a particularly bad one. I don't have the post space to scratch the surface but I'll drop a few for you.
In a late 2006 interview with George Stephanopoulos, Bush was asked about James Baker's plan to develop a strategy for Iraq that is "between 'stay the course' and 'cut and run.'" Bush responded, "We've never been stay the course, George!"
This was amazing given the hundreds, if not thousands, of quotes from the administration using exactly those words. A few from GWB himself: "We will stay the course." [8/30/06], "We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq." [8/4/05], "We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We're just going to stay the course." [12/15/03], "And my message today to those in Iraq is: We'll stay the course." [4/13/04], "And that's why we're going to stay the course in Iraq. And that's why when we say something in Iraq, we're going to do it." [4/16/04], and "[S]o we've got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course." [4/5/04].
At a fundraiser for Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.), Bush said, "177 of the opposition party said, 'You know, we don't think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists.'" However, when asked about Bush's comments, the White House couldn't provide a single example of a Democrat saying anything close to this. In reality, critics of the surveillance program have not argued against listening to terrorist phone calls but said the government should get warrants from a secret intelligence court.
Bush claimed, "The United States and our partners have disrupted at least ten serious al Qaeda terrorist plots since September the 11th, including three al Qaeda plots to attack inside the United States." The three inside the US were known as The West Coast Airliner Plot, The East Coast Airliner Plot, and The Jose Padilla Plot.
The first was apparently revealed by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and was treated with skepticism by officials. However, even if KSM's story was correct, the alleged plot was something that had been discussed but never put into action. By the time anybody knew about it, the threat -- if there had been one -- had passed. A senior FBI official was quoting saying, "To take that and make it into a disrupted plot is just ludicrous."
The second was attributed to Lyman Faris, an Ohio truck driver who pleaded guilty in June 2003 to two felony charges of supporting a foreign terrorist organization. His plan to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge was abandoned because he deemed it unlikely to succeed. Officials conceded that there was no threat by the time the plot was uncovered.
Jose Padilla received the most news coverage. For this one, I'll quote Paul Wolfowitz: "[T]here was not an actual plan to set off a radioactive device in America." Padilla had not begun trying to acquire materials. Intelligence officials said his research had not gone beyond surfing the internet.
"We are finding terrorists and bringing them to justice. We are gathering information about where the terrorists may be hiding. We are trying to disrupt their plots and plans. Anything we do... to that end in this effort, any activity we conduct, is within the law. We do not torture."
Of course, we later found that the administration had approved the use of torture, so they switched to defending it as okay.
I could go on about the Niger Yellow Cake lies, the domestic spying program lies, the Iraq-9/11 connection lies, etc, but you get the point.
The problem is that the Adblock Plus folks point you to a collection of many, many lists and recommend that you choose one (at random, I suppose). These are in various states of support and completeness and could go away at any point without warning. Filterset.G is an established filter set and works great for me.
I haven't gotten flash to work on my BSD machine... I know I risk losing my slashdot login, but I used Windows XP. I have an Apple Quicksilver with OS X (10.2, I think) that we tried for a while and I've ran both Ubuntu and SUSE in the past few years. With a fairly non-technical wife, two young kids, and myself, we've not been able to replace XP. I don't have spyware or virus problems (I'm behind a firewall and use Firefox exclusively). Rather than give up quite a few games, web sites, and assorted software, we're happy with Windows XP in our controlled environment.
Aside from a couple games that I can easily live without, I don't miss it. A few sites have intros that can't be viewed, but I skip those anyway because they are annoying wastes of time. I have found in the last year that many sites are increasingly using Flash for menus and real content. We can argue about whether this makes sense, but explain that to my wife and kids:)
Slashdot Mirror
The United States current presence in Iraq is at the request of the Iraqi government and under a clear mandate from the Security Council (first from resolution 1546, and most recently from resolution 1723. See Annex 1 in resolution 1723 for the letter from Prime Minister al-Maliki requesting the multinational force to stay).
Ohhh...sure. I guess that international peace and security to the area stuff isn't so important these days. A lack of UN resolution calling for the ouster of Saddam and US occupation of the country is no barrier to these things happening all because of the all important need for international peace and security to the area, but we can ignore the fact that these actions have resulted in even less peace and security in the area four years later. Has the UN revoked that magical authority the derived from 687? If not, someone needs to step up and enforce it. Perhaps China. I'm sure you would support that.
By the way, you should note that 1723 specifically includes France's concern regarding with the worsening of the security situation and noted that "a clear horizon for withdrawal of foreign troops made it possible to send a clear message that the objective of the international community was to help Iraq." Of course, the US refuses to even consider even a muddled horizon for the withdrawal of foreign troops, thereby failing to send a clear message on the objective of the international community.
I don't think that is a fair characterization. Some nations, most notably Russia and China as you pointed out, condemned the attacks. Others, like Japan and Sweden, gave strong endorsements of the US and UK position. The rest of the members of the Security Council, including countries like France and Costa Rica, expressed sorrow at the situation without taking a strong position either way about the legality of the actions. See S/PV.3955 for the minutes of the relevant discussion in the Security Council.
Fair enough; "roundly" was probably the wrong word. As you note, two of the five permanent members of the Security Council were very much opposed. Russia claimed that the bombings created a threat to "peace and security not only in the region but beyond it" (there's that phrase again). Russia and Chine strongly condemned the attacks and pointed out that the trouble was created as much by the US, UK, and UNSCOM, by intentionally provoking Saddam (something that has been documented throughout the process). And while trying to tip-toe across egg shells, even Kofi Annan expressed his disappointment with the actions and hoped to work toward a peaceful solution.
And back to the 2003 invasion for a moment, doesn't it say something when three of the five permanent Security Council members say the action of two other members is illegal and unjustified? And, when the Secretary-General of the UN agrees and calls the invasion illegal, against the will of the Security Council and the UN Charter?
This is completely false. Here is a quote from US Ambassador to the UN Peter Burleigh from the minutes I linked to above:
I misspoke. The arguments I referenced were made in the media and Congress, not before the Security Council. The US and UK ambassadors clearly did invoke those resolutions. And, the Russians and Chinese disagreed strongly with the US and UK interpretation.
Of course they were! Allow me to quote from the 2002 Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq...Iraq's support of terrorism was key to the argument from day one!
Now it's my turn to be right again! In response to my claims that the US government used weak and outright false connections between Iraq and 9/11 to bolster public support for an invasion, you claimed that regardless Iraq was a big supporter or terrorism, especially against the West. I asked why nothing outside of the supposed 9/11 connection was used. You say it was and point to
I hope you learned something :)
I have no problem with anyone offering this as an option. But HP has been very overt in their fight with their third-party toner market and this appears to be an obvious step in again trying to eliminate it.
- uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions
- restore international peace and security in the area
In other words, their ambitions were much broader than just kicking Iraq out of Kuwait. Absolutely not. As I've already explained, that second point means nothing significant here. It is commonly used wording which ties the resolution back to the UN's mission.Let's look at Resolution 425:
The Security Council,
Taking note of the letters from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon and from the Permanent Representative of Israel, Having heard the statement of the Permanent Representatives of Lebanon and Israel, Gravely concerned at the deterioration of the situation in the Middle East and its consequences to the maintenance of international peace, Convinced that the present situation impedes the achievement of a just peace in the Middle East,
- Calls for strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries;
- Calls upon Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory;
- Decides, in the light of the request of the Government of Lebanon, to establish immediately under its authority a United Nations interim force for Southern Lebanon for the purpose of confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring international peace and security and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area, the Force to be composed of personnel drawn from Member States;
- Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council within twenty-four hours on the implementation of the present resolution."
Israel finally pulled out its troops in 2000, more than 22 years after the UN passed this resolution. During that time, there were many deaths, many cases of terrorism, much open conflict. Considering that the resolution included the magic words "restoring international peace and security", someone should have invaded and occupied Israel years ago. I suppose you would have supported that?I disagree. As previously pointed out, the Security Council authorized war to get Iraq out of Kuwait, and to disarm Iraq and ensure they discontinue supporting terrorists. There is no indefinite or unilateral interpretation of this. In fact, all of the subsequent resolutions passed by the security council, and all of the subsequent military action taken against Iraq in the 1990's was done with this authorization, and the authorization was never revoked. The title of UNSEC #1441 is "The situation between Iraq and Kuwait", clearly showing that the Security Council didn't feel the ceasefire resolution was resolved. In my mind, the only people that didn't have any standing were those who refused to enforce the resolutions that had already been already passed by the Security Council.
You are free to think that, but that doesn't make it correct. Resolution 678 says nothing of disarming Iraq or them supporting terrorists. It is about Kuwait and nothing else (the "restore international peace and security in the area" is standard language and had no special meaning). As I've pointed out several times, 687 implemented a cease-fire and reserved future steps for the Security Council. You can keep ignoring that, but it's there. Read the Resolution. Further, the actions of the 90's also faced opposition. And, the '98 bombing (Operation Desert Fox) wasn't argued under these resolutions at all.
Your opinion of Russia, China, and France aside, the point is that they didn't feel that invasion and open war was the appropriate response at that time. So, the Security Council did not give its support to the invasion. I can respect your disagreement with those members, but not your attempts to distort the documented resolutions.
Well, Saddam's desire to bring his programs back online is significant, and is without question contrary to UN mandate. Hiding research, development, and acquisition attempts of banned materials and technology from UN inspectors is also significant. Maintaining chemical factories that can be switched to full scale Mustard production in a month is significant. Operating clandestine chemical and biological agent laboratories is significant. Seeking ballistic missiles and UAV's with a range time times greater than the allowed limit is significant. The Duelfer report is over 1400+ pages long, which is why I encourage anybody to at least read the key findings summary so they can know exactly what we did find, and how it was in violation to UNMOVIC requirements. However, in my mind the first page says it all -- Iraq wasn't concerned about compliance, they were concerned about the illusion of compliance.
I can see we're not going to make progress on this one. You've been unable to point to anything but Saddam's desire, then you try to equate that to actions. You simply are wrong on this one.
I am arguing that the UN would have been completely ineffective if the US and UK had not enforced the resolutions.
As I've answered elsewhere in this thread, you may be correct but the US/UK action is as bad or worse for the UN.
If you want to argue that there was absolutely no legal basis for military action in 2003, then you also have to argue that there was absolutely no legal basis for military action in 1998 for Operation Desert Fox under President Clinton...
As I've explained elsewhere in this thread, there was not international support for Desert Fox. China, Russia, and France opposed it. And, it was carried out under 688, a resolution absolutely zero authorization of force.
...and that there was absolutely no legal basis for the military action taken against Iraq in 1993 for WMD non-compliance.
At least this one was widely supported (France dropped a lot of the bombs and Russia supported the operation; I'm not sure about China) and was spurred by very overt actions. I'm not willing to say it was appropriate under the UN resolutions, but at least it d
In the case of Iraq, the Security council mandated that Iraq disarm, cease all WMD activity, and stop supporting terrorism. The council supported this mandate with the authorization given in 678 to use "all necessary means" to achieve compliance. The council never terminated this authorization. After 12 years, nobody could legitimately claim that Iraq was in complience.
'Round and around we go. The Security Council declared a cease-fire in 687 and reserved further action for themselves. Ignoring this point doesn't make it go away. You see the US and UK's (and the "coalition" that you discount's) actions as being harmful to the UN. I think it is the exact opposite- the invasion of Iraq saved the UN from becoming completely worthless. An organization that cannot enforce its own mandates, even in the face of over a decade in open defiance and deceit, is useless. Saddam was writing the playbook for any other rogue world leaders on how to defy the Security Council and get away with it. The US and UK showed that the decisions of the Security Council do have meaning, even if it takes 17 unanimous resolutions and 12 years for the council's will to be enforced. The US and UK showed that the UN is pointless because those at the top can do as they wish with no apparent repercussions. The US invaded Afghanistan and continues to occupy it with no end in sight. The biggest change over the Taliban's rule is that poppy production is back up, flooding the world with cheap opium again. The US invaded Iraq and continues to occupy it. Iraq is in shambles and shows no signs of approaching even the level of stability found under Saddam. The US and UK confirmed that international organizations are only as good as the big guys want to play fair. As permanent members with veto power, the US and UK have nothing to fear from the Security Council. Take a look at the relatively-minor resolutions condemning US actions that the US vetoed.I will pick up a few new items:
How am I trying to mislead? I quoted directly from Resolution 678. The UN explicitly gave the authorization for two things:
On item (2), I guess some other UN country will need to invade again and kick the US out, unless you are willing to claim that international peace and security to the area has improved. Surely that's not a limb you're willing to crawl out on.
And, while I said I wouldn't repeat myself, I feel I must again point out the fallacy in your overall argument here. Resolution 687 declared a cease-fire and reserved the right for the Security Council to take further measures as necessary. Therefore, 660, 678, and 687 are pointless in this argument. Further, Resolution 1441 does not authorize force.
The authorization from 678 and 687 was enough to justify military action multiple times in the 1990s...So, as Secretary General of the United Nations, I can say that this action was taken and conforms to the resolutions of the Security Council and conformed to the Charter of the United Nations
First, I've never seen the quote; I would be interested in knowing where I could find it.
Secondly, those military actions in the '90s were challenged as well, but they fell well short of invasion. And, to be practical, taking out a few missile factories or military airfields in response to large violations of the agreement (massing troops at the border again and going into Kuwait to recover abandoned military hardware) is easier to let pass. The 1993 attacks were supported by at least most of the Security Council (Russia was involved and France did a lot of the bombing).
More recently, the '98 bombings by the US and UK were roundly condemned in the international community. Russia, France, and China opposed the actions in the Security Council. And, it is worth noting that the US didn't use 660, 678, or 687 to justify those attacks. This was about the no-fly zones that were setup from the Safwan Accords and often linked to Resolution 688. However, 688 is not a Chapter VII resolution so it did not permit any military action for enforcement. The no-fly zones themselves never had UN authorization.
Vice President Cheney never claimed that Iraq was responsible for September 11, and I defy you to show otherwise. I remember a talk show that he was on a few years ago where he said that the Middle East is home to the fanatics that carried out the attacks, and some people misinterpreted that to mean Iraq, but he has never blamed Iraq for 9/11.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09 /16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/
This is but one example of how the administration used propaganda to those ends. The process was the same: White House sources leaked the information to the press, the administration refuses to confirm or deny it, then they said it seems to be true, and would refuse to deny the validity of the information long after it had been discredited. In the particular article linked above, Cheney doesn't say, "Saddam flew the planes into NY on 9/11". But he provides a very dishonest response, carefully calculated to continue the propaganda.
The facts that Iraq was one of the most active supporters of terrorism, especially against the West, are incontrovertible.
Then why weren't those facts used to support the war? The administration talked plenty about Iraq's connection to Al-Qaeda (intentionally playing on the Al-Qaeda = 9/11 connection) despite weak evidence that eventually crumbled around them. If there are tons of incontroverti
To each their own. I think it's a smart financial move with HP. I don't purchase the printers required to print my photography prints.
This is simply their newest tactic in their war on refillers. If this product is successful, the "service only" will be extended to other new models.Perhaps we are just nitpicking here, but the Security Council is solely comprised of member states, so I don't see much difference. If we are charged with enforcing ceasefire conditions, and we find that Iraq is in material breach of those agreements, it is our responsibility (as members of the UN security council) to enforce those resolutions.
No, we aren't nitpicking. This is a core problem for the US government - membership in the UN means accepting certain basic agreements. The UN Charter lays out a core understanding of how things operate, one being this issue. It is not the responsibility of any one member state to make such decisions and act upon them. It is the responsibility of the Security Council. If you don't like that, take the bars and stars off the flag pole in Manhattan and leave it for the other 191 countries. Otherwise, play by the rules.
I don't know if it is deliberate or not, but you are excluding the rest of the wording included in the text of the resolution. Iraq had to "unconditionally undertake not to" engage in proscribed activities. They were not allowed to even plan on developing WMD, or talk with other countries about acquiring banned missile technology or prohibited materials.
Ahh. Now I see the rub. That isn't what that passage means. "Unconditionally undertake not to..." is essentially "solemnly swear not to". It has no additional meaning and has nothing to do with planning to what it is not allowed. This is extremely common wording in legal documents, both international items like this and even local banking agreements.
I didn't say that bin Laden was in Iraq -- I said that Saddam Hussein offered him political asylum after he was expelled from Saudi Arabia and was searching for a place to set up shop.
Actually, you didn't say that. I was unsure exactly what you meant. I am aware of those reports back in 1999. It apparently was nothing but saber rattling from Saddam - bin Laden didn't take him up on and Saddam reportedly decided in 2001 that he didn't want bin Laden there after all.
And I disagree with your characterization of Zarqawi. Ansar al-Islam was operating out of northern Iraq, but Zarqawi was operating in and out of Baghdad, and even received medical treatment from Uday Hussein's personal physician in the summer of 2002.
Zarqawi reported left Iran for Iraq specifically for the medical treatment (supposedly for a wound received while fighting against the US in Afghanistan). After his treatment, he setup in northern Iraq. He was not operating out of Baghdad - the Pentagon tracked him daily for nearly a year in the lead-up to the invasion and he stayed in northern Iraq.
Let me turn it around. Why do you think it was an option? I've already explained why I believe it wasn't an option.
Your explanation for why it isn't an option seems to hinge on your misunderstanding of the phrase "unconditionally undertake". There's a difference between planning and implementing. Saddam had every right to re-arm himself once the sanctions were lifted so it should be obvious that he would be planning for it.
Every report also declared that Iraq was in material breach of their UN obligations. Even Hans Blix agreed that Iraq was not fully complying, and the ISG report backed it all up. This wasn't a case of putting a bullet in their head "just in case" - it was a case of putting a bullet in their head because they already proven that they were a lethal threat that we could no longer ignore, they were secretly rearming and planning to further rearm, and they had only responded to bullets in the past.
Clearly my statements regarding proportionality of response aren't getting through. Under international law, UN mandate, and most common law, a response must be proportional to the event that initiated it. In what turned out to be his final report before the invasion, Blix reported success in the inspections and requested more t
20. Never forget that your weapon is made by little kids in China contracted by a subcontractor of the highest campaign contributer.
Which is the same thing as an agreement between Iraq and UN Member states that were obligated to enforce the UN resolutions.
Wrong. Security Council resolutions are mandates enforced, modified, or terminated by the Security Council, not by states in general. Both the explicit terms of the UN Charter and the practice of the Security Council support this understanding.
Sure it does. The resolution specifically required Iraq to "unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire" these items. It would be patently false to claim that these actions did not violate that clause.
Then please indulge my ignorance and explain whether he used, developed, constructed, or acquired missiles.
I'm confused about where your conflict is here. It is a documented fact agreed upon by all parties that Iraq sent an envoy to Niger to discuss business relationships. It's also a documented fact that Niger understood these overtures as an attempt to buy Yellowcake from them. Considering that Yellowcake was a major export, this isn't a stretch. It is, once again, also a documented fact that Iraq was required to "unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire" these items. This information is completely independent of the documents that were later discovered as forgeries.
Calling some of those items documented facts are a bit of a stretch, but I will agree that they are more than likely all true. However, that only gets us back to our argument of what is actually prohibited. If an envoy from Iraq talked to a businessman in Niger, never mentioned uranium, and nothing further came of the overture, then how exactly did Saddam use, develop, construct, or acquire said items?
Very valid point, and I am in complete agreement. However, this is completely irrelevant to the issue of Iraq trying to acquire banned materials prior to the war.
Actually, it goes back to my overall theme of "good guys" vs. "bad guys" and propaganda. The US is trying to claim the moral and legal high ground, and using claims related to nuclear materials to get points with the general public. However, their actions (intentional or negligence - your call) directly led to the disappearance of huge quantities of the stuff. The US claimed to be worried that Iraq would provide the materials to terrorists, but perhaps that's exactly what the US did here (again, intentionally or not).
Unfortunately, his own actions backed him into the corner that it was in fact illegal. When the United Nations prohibits you from using, developing, constructing, or acquiring WMD, you can't hide your Vx nerve gas production, fail to disclose the status of other WMD programs or stockpiles...without expecting consequences from those who are in charge of ensuring your compliance.
I agree. However, my response was in regard to your quote: He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted as the smoking gun from the Duelfer report. You're now steering us back to the argument that was abandoned earlier regarding the use of pre-1441 resolutions and Iraq's responses.
And you certainly cannot offer political asylum to the world's most wanted terrorist, or allow known terror groups that have connections to the largest terrorist attack on civilians in history to operate within your borders, even if you don't have a collaborative relationship with that group.
Osama bin Laden was in Iraq?! I'm going to guess that your comments are in reference to Zarqawi. As I've said numerous times in this thread, he operated out of the northern part of Iraq which was outside of Saddam's control. Beyond that, a little knowledge of the two reveals the inconsistency with your claim - Zarqawi (and the nebulous Al-Qaeda network, for that matter) advocated the overthrowing of secular governments in favor of Islamic states. Saddam ran a s
I will only leave one final point: If a party agrees to certain conditions for the terms of a ceasefire, and then is found in material breach of those conditions, is that ceasefire still in effect?
If the cease-fire was an agreement between two countries, perhaps you can make the argument. However, the agreement was between Iraq and the UN.
You seem to be missing the point. He was not allowed to have these missiles, and he was clearly trying to acquire them against UN mandate.
The resolution doesn't say he can't talk to other countries about missiles. It is patently false to claim that his inquiring about missile technology was in violation of the sanctions.
Just as he was not allowed to have the Uranium Yellowcake that he had clearly tried to aquire from Africa.
I can't believe you tossed up a softball like this. The best information indicates that there might have been some communication between Niger and Iraq about expanding business relations, but that there was zero mention of uranium and that Niger didn't pursue the potential relationship because of concerns about UN sanctions. This became an issue because of the forged documents used by the Bush administration in their push for war. Even today, I bet a full third of the American public don't realize that the whole story was a hoax.
If you want to talk about yellow cake, let's discuss Tuwaitha. This facility already possessed yellow cake uranium in the remains of nuclear reactors (the ones bombed by Israel in 1981 and the United States in 1991). The facility was frequently inspected by the IAEA after the Gulf War, but was left unattended during the US invasion. Almost two metric tons of yellow cake and 500 tons of unrefined uranium went missing during this period, thanks to the US. When U.S. Marines arrived at the Tuwaitha factory, they reported it as an illegal weapons cache and broke the IAEA seals. After a month of indecision, the Pentagon finally dispatched a team to survey the site and found it heavily looted.
He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted."
So what? He is the leader of a nation in the most violation geopolitical region on earth. He has made serious enemies over the years. Of course he wants to end the sanctions and restart his weapons programs. Again, this is in no way a breach of the cease-fire. Dreams aren't illegal, yet.
Arguing that this was not enough to justify military action is, IMO, the same as arguing that we shouldn't do anything about potential killers like Cho Seung-Hui until they strap on a few guns, chain the doors shut, and start shooting people. In my opinion, that is clearly too late.
So we go Minority Report and convict people before they've decided to commit a crime? Perhaps the professor that referred Seung-Hui should have just shot him last year and been declared a hero? I disagree strongly. Was the hell wrought upon Iraq proportional to Saddam's toying with the letter of the sanctions? No.
As for the VT case... This guy had been accused of stalking two women in the past. Because of a friend's concern that he was suicidal, he was taken to a mental health facility only last year. At about the same time, the professor reported her concerns about him. Everyone describes him as completely out of touch with reality, threatening, frightening, and such. After some students stopped coming to class because of his intimidation, a professor finally got him removed from her class by threatening to quit. His tutor was so frightened by him that she created a secret code word with her assistant in case she ever needed the police. Other students joked that he was going to be a school shooter some day.
Yet the university did nothing. Having worked at a university for five years, I can say that this is frustratingly common. I saw several kids get in serious t
As for the rest...
Bingo. They declared these weapons to the UN in December of 2002, but had been banned from possessing them or developing them 12 years prior to that. But they did declare them and therefore were not in breach of the cease-fire. This only demonstrates that 1441 was working, much to the chagrin of the US administration. Iraq entered into negotiations with North Korean and Russian entities for more capable missile systems. Iraq and North Korea in 2000 discussed a 1,300-km-range missile, probably the No Dong, and in 2002 Iraq approached Russian entities about acquiring the Iskander-E short-range ballistic missile (SRBM). DEAR GOD! Saddam still wanted missiles?!! Did he get those No Dong missiles? No. Again, I would recommend that you at least read the key findings document from the Duelfer report. Keeping in mind that Iraq was forbidden by UNSEC #687 to "to use, develop, construct or acquire" WMD, you don't have to go past the first page to find that he was in material breach. Actually, I have and I'm still not seeing your smoking gun. Would you care to point out what on the first page is a "material breach"?I'm going to be honest- I found this list of alleged lies to be rather petty...Considering the constant drumbeat of "Bush Lied" I am a little surprised that this was all you came up with.
So you're upset that people call him a liar without support, but then find support lies to seem petty? And, that wasn't all I came up with. That list accounted for a good deal of my post and was but a drop in the bucket. If you aren't aware of the many blatant lies and don't care to go read the wealth of documented lists, then I guess your head can stay in the sand.
I don't think you could go on about those. Everything he said about Niger yellowcake is 100% true, I don't know what lies about domestic spying you are referring to (the President never denied the existence of the program), and nobody in the administration has claimed that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 (on the contrary, the President has publicly stated multiple times that Iraq was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Example).
As I just said, this is a pointless exercise. I could have GWB standing in front of you saying that the moon is made of green cheese and you would deny that he lied. Besides, your ultimate out is always to claim political incompetence and blame his aides.
It is pretty hard to deny that this constitutes a serious threat against us, and we had just learned a pretty vivid lesson on September 11 about what happens when you ignore these kinds of threats.
It is amazing how that worked out. Nevermind that the Deulfer and ISG reports indicate that Saddam had little to no interest in attacking the US - he was preoccupied primarily with Iran. The one big connection found to a terrorist network is a group that opposes Iran (and has been supported by US officials, including John Ashcroft). Saddam also supported the Palestinians in their fight with Israel. Meanwhile we have North Korea and Iran openly threatening the US without any repercussions.
Well, when the US joined the United Nations and agreed to it's charter, it (like all members of the UN) agreed in Chapter VII to enforce the mandates of the Security Council.
And when the Security Council does not agree with the US's interpretation of previous resolutions and refuses to unambiguously authorize the use of force, the US is empowered to act for the full Security Council? No. Article 39 of the UN Charter says that, "[t]he Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security." After the Resolution 687 declared a cease-fire, it was up to the Security Council to again decide on breaches of "international peace" and how to best deal with them. This right does not belong to any single member nation.
I disagree- the UN explicitly gave the authorization to use military force to enforce the cease-fire defined in resolution 687, and backed that authorization up over a dozen times in subsequent years. This is the same authorization that was used to justify air strikes against Iraqi anti-aircraft installations in 1993 and for Operation Desert Fox in 1998. It was valid then and it was still valid in 2003.
I understand the legal loopholes argued for by the Bush administration and I know that even the UK was uncomfortable with the US position. Your choice of wording is intentionally misleading (and factually inaccurate). The UN explicitly gave authorization for member nations to work with the government of Kuwait to push Iraq back to their previous borders. Your extrapolation is that Saddam's flaunting of the letter of the law revoked the cease-fire agreement, which then automatically reactivates the authorization for force from years earlier. But not even the US administration relied on 660, 678, and 687 alone. As I pointed out elsewhere in
Maybe Verizon is a bigger Cisco customer than Vonage is.
Verizon is a huge Cisco customer, both using their equipment and reselling it.UNSEC 678 authorizes the use of military force to "uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area".
UNSEC 687, sections C through H, spelled out exactly what was required of Iraq to restore international peace and security to the area, including: a complete declaration and destruction in the presence of UN observers of their WMD stockpiles, a complete declaration and destruction of their ballistic missile and UAV programs with a range of at least 150km, a specific prohibition that Iraq was not "to use, develop, construct or acquire" WMD, and that Iraq "will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory", along with condemning any other acts of international terrorism.
The US did not depend on 678 - they considered 1441 the loophole they needed. Resolution 1441 did not authorize the use of force. In fact, both the U.S. ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, and the UK ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, gave assurances that the resolution provided no "automaticity", no "hidden triggers". The US and UK ambassadors agreed that 1441 included no step to invasion without consultation of the Security Council. The US was keenly aware of this and tried desperately to get UN approval via a new resolution, but they could not. And keep in mind that both Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei had just given the UN reports that further undercut the US push for war - they had found nothing worthy of concern and wanted more time to continue the inspections. The American attack forced the weapons inspectors back out of the country.
Don't get me wrong - Saddam was jerking around the international community and playing games with the system. Some of those on the Security Council refusing to authorize war were profitting from illegal deals with Iraq. However, none of that gives the US the right to launch a war of aggression against another sovereign nation.
Iraq did not dismantle their prohibited ballistic missile programs as was proven by the discovery of the Al-Samoud 2 missiles, and the development of the North Korean No Dong 2000km ballistic missiles.
You mean the Al-Samoud 2 missiles that were declared to the UN in December of 2002 and were considered a violation because they could potentially exceed the 150 km range limit by 30 km? The same Al-Samoud 2 missiles that Iraq was in the process of destroying when the US invasion occurred? I have to admit that I'm at a loss to explain your "North Korean No Dong 2000km ballistic missiles" comment. I'm not aware of any reports about No Dong missiles in Iraq and I can't find anything on Google. No Dong missiles do not even have a 2000 km range.
We know for a fact from the Duelfer report, and from the interim ISG report by David Kay, that Iraq did not discontinue the development and acquisition of WMD. Both reports clearly detail WMD development activities that were in violation of UN mandate.
Again, I'm at a loss. The Duelfer report was considered a scathing rebuke of American rhetoric and propaganda. It indicated that Saddam wanted to restart his weapons programs as soon as the sanctions were lifted, but I don't think that was disallowed. The report demonstrated that his nuclear program was in shambles, and his chemical and biological programs nonexistent. And why do you guys love to reference David Kay's interim report rather than the final ISG report? Even with the few issues pointed out in the report, the conclusion is that they were insignificant.
But there is also no doubt that Iraq was still in violation of UNSEC 687 paragraph 10, leaving a clear authorization to use military force for compliance.
As has been pointed out many times, the US is not the UN. The US did not pass those resolutions alone and the US does not have the authority to interpret and s
One other item that I wanted to point out is that even if we accept that Resolutions 1441, 687, 678, and 660 actually do combine in such a way to provide a legal loophole for enforcement of 687 without additional Council actions, lawfulness must also consider the question of proportionality. Any force used relative to the authorization in 678:
- must have as its objective the enforcement the terms of the cease-fire contained in resolution 687 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions
- be limited to what is necessary to achieve that objective
- must be a proportionate response to that objective, ie securing compliance with Iraq's disarmament obligations
(this is according to Britain's Attorney General back in 2003)He stressed to Blair that regime change cannot be the objective of military action and that "this should be borne in mind...in making public statements about any campaign", advice clearly taken by the US government.
Bush's arguments from his State of the Union boil down to:
- to eliminate Saddam's weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
- to diminish the threat of international terrorism
- to promote democracy in Iraq and surrounding areas
The first item on that list is the only one remotely related to the UN resolutions and it turned out it be malarkey. There was plenty of room for arguing that Iraq's failure to allow full and unfettered inspections amounted to a clear breach of the cease-fire agreement. However, this failed to get significant support for war so intelligence data was doctored and manufactured to make it appear that Saddam actually possessed these weapons.On this point, you claimed:
I would love to see real support for this, because I can't find it. I assume your statement is pulled from David Kay's interim report on the ISG. What I did find was the September 30, 2004, U.S. Iraq Survey Group Final Report that concluded: "ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn (sic) possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but the available evidence from its investigation--including detainee interviews and document exploitation--leaves open the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq although not of a militarily significant capability." Point after point in the report indicate that while Saddam still had aspirations of weapons programs, the Gulf War and subsequent inspections had destroyed his capacity to produce conventional, chemical, or nuclear weapons of any significant concern outside of the UN sanctions. I can't imagine how a few discoveries like a nuclear scientist with a centrifuge buried in his yard is scarier than what Bush claimed we'd find in Iraq.
As for the rest of Bush's claims, the second was based upon dishonest connections, and the invasion and occupation has had the opposite effect anyway. Which leaves us only with number 3 - regime change. As pointed out by the British Attorney General, this is not a legitimate basis for a declaration of war.
Unfortunately, propaganda is rampant on all sides of the debate. Look at the legions of people that call George W Bush a "liar" without bothering to cite what it is exactly that they think he lied about.
That is a valid complaint, but doesn't change the facts. All politicians are liars. Bush just seems to be a particularly bad one. I don't have the post space to scratch the surface but I'll drop a few for you.
This was amazing given the hundreds, if not thousands, of quotes from the administration using exactly those words. A few from GWB himself: "We will stay the course." [8/30/06], "We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq." [8/4/05], "We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We're just going to stay the course." [12/15/03], "And my message today to those in Iraq is: We'll stay the course." [4/13/04], "And that's why we're going to stay the course in Iraq. And that's why when we say something in Iraq, we're going to do it." [4/16/04], and "[S]o we've got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course." [4/5/04].
The first was apparently revealed by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and was treated with skepticism by officials. However, even if KSM's story was correct, the alleged plot was something that had been discussed but never put into action. By the time anybody knew about it, the threat -- if there had been one -- had passed. A senior FBI official was quoting saying, "To take that and make it into a disrupted plot is just ludicrous."
The second was attributed to Lyman Faris, an Ohio truck driver who pleaded guilty in June 2003 to two felony charges of supporting a foreign terrorist organization. His plan to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge was abandoned because he deemed it unlikely to succeed. Officials conceded that there was no threat by the time the plot was uncovered.
Jose Padilla received the most news coverage. For this one, I'll quote Paul Wolfowitz: "[T]here was not an actual plan to set off a radioactive device in America." Padilla had not begun trying to acquire materials. Intelligence officials said his research had not gone beyond surfing the internet.
Of course, we later found that the administration had approved the use of torture, so they switched to defending it as okay.
I could go on about the Niger Yellow Cake lies, the domestic spying program lies, the Iraq-9/11 connection lies, etc, but you get the point.
Fair p
Now, I simply don't install Flash.
I did that for a while, but got tired of being prompted to install Flash every 2.3 seconds.The problem is that the Adblock Plus folks point you to a collection of many, many lists and recommend that you choose one (at random, I suppose). These are in various states of support and completeness and could go away at any point without warning. Filterset.G is an established filter set and works great for me.